There are a variety of reasons an individual could be rejected for a federal government job. In addition to meeting the job requirements, and security clearance requirements, positions working either directly for, or supporting the government as a contractor also require a special criteria called ‘suitability,’ While similar to – and often confused with – a security clearance determination, the two terms are different.
Suitability Factors
The Department of Defense Center for Development of Security Excellence published a four-page document outlining “Suitability Factors.” If any of the eight identified areas are germane, further investigation is warranted to determine if the individual should be considered qualified for work in support of the Department of Defense.
- Misconduct or Negligence in Employment – the former is doing something wrong in the employer’s estimation, the latter is failure to do something expected by the employer.
- Alcohol Abuse – current and continuing abuse; rehab demonstrating break in habit is desirable
- Criminal or Dishonest Conduct – criminal behavior unless the accused is innocent, even if expunged or pardoned would not nullify, dishonesty boils down to deceitful behavior, theft, bribery falsification of records, and financially irresponsibility
- Illegal Use of Narcotics, Drugs – Current or recent use or possession of drugs (including marijuana (though legal in many states, it remains illegal in the eyes of the federal government and is a disqualifier).
- False Statement/Deception/Fraud in Examination or appointment – Lie on the SF86; provide false answers; withhold information
- Engagement in Acts to Overthrow the United States Government – “must be an overt act, membership in organizations alone is not disqualifying.”
- Refusal to Furnish Testimony – testimony is required unless prohibited by law or regulation.
- Any Statutory/Regulatory Bar preventing lawful employment – the guidance details there “must be a specific legal restriction to employment” and then list a catalog of additional considerations to include nature of position; conduct, societal conditions, and absence/presence of rehab.
The Department of Defense instruction from which these factors were drawn provides additional detail surrounding the topic of suitability, investigation, and reinvestigation and the rights of an individual to appeal their suitability determination.
Continuous Vetting and suitability
The next phase of the Trusted Workforce 2.0 effort will be the enrollment of the Non-Sensitive-Public Trust population into a Continuous Vetting (CV) solution. With the full security cleared workforce enrolled in CV, moving forward other populations serving the federal government will also be a part of this proactive approach to determine suitability and fitness, and eligibility for one’s position. While some in this population may be hesitant or wonder what the government is looking for, it’s worth noting the process has come a long way in its fitness adjudications, ensuring criteria are based on risks – and not trends.
ClearanceJobs took the opportunity to speak with retired CIA officer and current novelist, J.R. Seeger, on the topic of suitability. He took us on a walk back into a bit of not-to-distant history of the late-1940s and 1950s when the United Kingdom and to a lesser extent, the United States, used what is known as a “hard vet” to determine whether an individual was deemed trustworthy. While a review of these methods of the security-vetting programs were designed to protect the UK government from Soviet spies, they also included as disqualifiers “character defects – drink, drugs and homosexuality.”
A key takeaway from the discussion with Seeger, which he based on his years of engagement across both the intelligence and defense communities, is that “Suitability is not a generational issue.” Suitability is an individual issue.
